understanding bystander behavior in ......i understanding bystander behavior in cyberbullying...
TRANSCRIPT
i
UNDERSTANDING BYSTANDER BEHAVIOR IN CYBERBULLYING
ENCOUNTERS:
AN APPLICATION OF BYSTANDER APATHY THEORY
A Thesis
Presented to the Faculty in Communication and Leadership Studies
School of Professional Studies
Gonzaga University
Under the Supervision of Dr. John S. Caputo
Under the Mentorship of Dr. Carolyn Cunningham
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts in Communication and Leadership Studies
By
Jodie M. Bowers
December 2014
ii
iii
Abstract
Cyberbullying consequences are increasingly turning tragic with the victims
committing suicide. Cyberbullying is carried out through computer mediated
communication and due to public nature of social media platforms, it is natural to believe
any number of individuals are witnessing any and all acts of communication. This
becomes especially problematic during cyberbullying encounters because the victim is
vulnerable to hurtful communication from anyone who views the attack. The victim is
also subject to humiliation because of sharing capabilities that computer mediated
communication provides. However, it has been proven that bullies will typically back
down in face-to-face situations if a witness intervenes, so it could be hypothesized that
the same would hold true in cyberbullying instances. This study takes the first step in
researching personal action accounts of witnesses. The study examines bystander
behavior and communication in cyberbullying encounters to help determine why
bystanders behave the way they do when witnessing cyberbullying. To better understand
bystander behavior, the study was analyzed through the steps detailed in the bystander
apathy theory. The study was conducted through a convenience sample survey, focus
groups, individual interviews, and email correspondence. Results of the study
demonstrate that bystanders do go through a step-by-step process similar to the steps in
the bystander apathy theory to determine whether they will or will not intervene. The
study also produced three common themes of non-intervention: lack of responsibility,
trivialization of the situation, and fear of embarrassment.
iv
Table of Contents
Signature Page .................................................................................................................... ii
Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iii
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... iv
Chapter 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................1
Introduction ......................................................................................................................1
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................2
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................3
Definition of Terms Used ................................................................................................3
Organization of Remaining Chapters...............................................................................4
Chapter 2. Review of the Literature .....................................................................................5
Philosophical Assumptions ..............................................................................................5
Theoretical Basis ..............................................................................................................7
Literature Review ..........................................................................................................13
Research Rationale.........................................................................................................18
Research Questions ........................................................................................................19
Chapter 3. Scope and Methodology ...................................................................................21
Scope of the Study .........................................................................................................21
Methodology of the Study .............................................................................................23
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................25
Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................................26
Chapter 4. The Study .........................................................................................................28
Introduction ....................................................................................................................28
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................28
Results of the Study .......................................................................................................30
Discussion ......................................................................................................................35
Chapter 5. Summary and Conclusion ................................................................................39
Limitations of the Study.................................................................................................39
Further Study or Recommendations ..............................................................................40
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................41
References ..........................................................................................................................43
APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………….…..46
APPENDIX A: Research Description and Informed Consent …………..……...46
APPENDIX B: Initial Survey/Questionnaire Research Phase I………………....47
APPENDIX C: Open-Ended Focus Group Questions Research Phase II.............48
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 1
Chapter 1. Introduction
Introduction
Computer mediated communication (CMC) has provided great advancements in
one’s ability to stay connected with others, whether they are miles or minutes apart.
However, CMC has also had negative results. Thurlow, Lengle, and Tomic (2004) state
that “CMC is especially prone to aggression because interaction is less easily regulated
and is more uninhibited” (p. 71). Bullying and cyberbullying are examples of aggression
from CMC that have received much attention in recent years. Rightfully so; it is
imperative that, as a technologically adept society, we move away from the kids will be
kids (Mills & Babrow, 2003) mentality many have about how children, teenagers, and
young adults interact with each other. “Although many people associate teasing with fun
and good-natured ribbing, others have lasting scars from the teasing and bulling they
experienced as children and adolescents” (Kowalski, 2007, p. 170). CMC has opened the
door for cyberbullies to wreak havoc on their victims, virtually 24 hours a day, seven
days a week. Current and past studies have focused on bystander behavior and
communication patterns in face-to-face bullying situations (Easton & Aberman, 2008;
Pöyhönen, Juvonen, & Salmivalli, 2012), teasing as a means of social influence (Mills &
Babrow, 2003), and traditional face-to-face bullying (Camodeca & Goossens, 2005;
Thornberg, Rosenqvist, & Johannson, 2012). There is one aspect of cyberbullying that
has not received much research attention. Bystander behavior and communication habits
in cyberbullying encounters is an area that is unexplored. This study utilizes the
bystander apathy theory (Latané & Darley, 1969) to analyze bystander behavior and
communication habits in cyberbullying encounters to gain insight as to the process
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 2
cyberbullying bystanders go through when determining whether they will or will not
intervene.
Importance of the Study
According to the STOMP Out Bullying (2014) website “35% of kids have been
threatened online. Nearly 1 in 5 have had it happen more than once. 58% of kids admit
someone has said mean or hurtful things to them online. More than 4 out of 10 say it has
happened more than once.” These statistics highlight the rates in which children and
teens are experiencing cyberbullying, which alone indicates a need for further study.
According to Dr. Kate Roberts (2013) in an interview with Ciaran Connolly for
Nobullying.com, “bystanders are actually the most critical person to be a deterrent for
bullying” (Connolly & Roberts, 2013, Bystanders section, para 2). Bystanders can play a
vital role in curbing tragic consequences of cyberbullying if they determine they have a
responsibility to intervene.
This research explores the step-by-step process a cyberbullying witness
maneuvers through when determining their level of personal responsibility to intervene.
Further, this study examines the underlying reasons behind specific actions and
communication patterns of bystanders to determine the most common themes amongst
non-intervention.
Statement of the Problem
Fifty-eight percent of cyberbullying victims have not told their parents or another
trusted adult about their online harassment experiences (STOMPOutBullying.org,
cyberbullying statistics, 2014). They likely feel alone and do not want to experience the
humiliation of admitting to being bullied. This is where bystanders can play a critical role
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 3
by intervening when they witness an episode of cyberbullying. By simply reaching out to
the victim, whether by personal message or directly commenting on a thread, a bystander
can communicate to the victim that he/she is not alone. However, this is not a course of
action that is regularly taken by witnesses.
Definition of Terms and Phrases Used
This study utilizes a number of terms and phrases that require clarification.
Bystander – an individual that witnesses an act that could be considered cyberbullying
Cyberbullying - willful and repeated harm inflicted through the medium of electronic
text
Diffusion of responsibility – is a sociopsychological phenomenon whereby a person is
less likely to take responsibility for action or inaction when others are present.
State of Pluralistic Ignorance – is state of being in which the majority of members in a
situation portray the situation to be less serious than it is, thereby affecting the reactions
of other members in the group. This causes inaction amongst a group of people.
Victim – an individual who has been cyberbullied
Witness – same as bystander; used interchangeably
Organization of Remaining Chapters
This study includes five chapters. The first chapter introduced the importance of
studying bystander behavior in cyberbullying encounters. The second chapter discusses
the philosophical assumptions and theoretical basis that guided this research. Chapter
two also consists of a literature review of past research to provide a basic understanding
of why bullying occurs, bullying as viewed by adolescents, various definitions of
cyberbullying, who cyberbullies, and bystander behavior in traditional face-to-face
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 4
situations. Chapter two concludes with the researcher’s rationale for the study and a
statement and explanation of the study’s research questions. Chapter three discusses the
study’s scope and methodology and addresses how the research will be conducted and
analyzed. Chapter four presents the results of the study as well as a discussion of the
three key themes that emerged from the research and how they align with the guiding
theory presented in chapter two. Finally, chapter five summarizes the study, discusses
limitations to the study, and provides suggestions for future research.
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 5
Chapter 2. Review of the Literature
Philosophical Assumptions
Clifford Christians in the creator of communitarian ethics; “A moral
responsibility to promote community, mutuality, and persons-in-relation who live
simultaneously for others and themselves” (Griffin, 2012, p. 387). Christians believed
that people are “most fully human” (Griffin, 2012, p. 387) when they are in relations with
others living for others and for themselves, creating a moral community. In these
communities, people have a sincere concern for those around them. “Communitarianism
is a social philosophy that contradicts mainstream individualism. When it is developed in
terms of public communication, the operating term is social responsibility” (Christians,
2007). Communitarian ethics is closely linked to Martin Buber’s philosophy of how
individuals should treat one another (Buber, 1970). “Buber wrote “the relation…here is
the cradle of actual life” (Buber, 1970, p. 60) and differentiated two different types of
relationships, I-It and I-Thou.
Holding true to Christian’s (2007) philosophy of social responsibility, when
people engage in an I-Thou relationship, they treat each other as they would want to be
treated. Individuals are seen as “created in the image of God and resolve to treat him or
her as a valued end rather than a means to our end” (Griffin, 2012, p. 79). And it is
through dialogue, which Buber indicated is the equivalent of ethical communication,
which people “help each other to be more human” (Griffin, 2012, p. 79). It is through
this dialogue, social responsibility, and treating each other in the way we would want to
be treated, that individuals grow, learn who they are, and determine their value within
their community.
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 6
In an I-It relationship, individuals are denied the dialogue necessary to develop
self-worth. People are, instead, used and manipulated (Griffin, 2012, p. 79). An I-It
relationship negates all that which communitarian ethics stands. Children, teenagers, and
adults who are bullied are being deprived of self-worth-building dialogue that would
allow them to see themselves as valued members of their community. Bullied individuals
are being used for the self-interest of the bully.
It is often assumed that bullying is a “kids will be kids” behavior or that
individuals are merely partaking in teasing. Teasing is a normal part of growing up and
is a behavior that is seen well into adulthood around the world (Mills & Babrow, 2003).
According to Mills and Babrow (2003) people engage in teasing as a social influence
strategy to “shape untoward behavior” (p. 275). Untoward behavior would consist of any
behavior that is inappropriate or incongruent with social norms. Teasing used in this
manner is said to cause the teased individual to rethink their behavior without feeling
attacked. When used appropriately, teasing can have positive effects.
Teasing, though, involves “an element of play” (Mills & Babrow, 2003, p. 283)
and is understood by all participants that the comments are said in jest. However,
individuals are not all emotionally and cognitively the same, and it is when a participant
takes the teasing too far or the act is misinterpreted that teasing can potentially be seen as
bullying. When teasing is used as arousal management it is intended to upset or anger the
teased individual (Mills & Babrow, 2003). “To students, teasing can be both playful and
inclusive or exclusionary and humiliating” (Hoover & Milner, 2005, p. 4). If the teasing
is a repeated behavior directly used as arousal management, it is then considered by this
researcher as bullying.
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 7
Before a theoretical study of virtual bystander behavior can be undertaken, it is
first necessary to understand the various aspects of bullying and cyberbullying as well as
the basics of how the act is defined and how individual roles associated with the act are
interpreted and understood by those most directly affected, children and teenagers.
Understanding how adolescents attribute meaning to bullying acts in face-to-face
situations will allow better understanding of their behavior in a virtual environment.
Much of prior research focuses on adolescents or professionals in the workplace. While
there have been some studies done on college-age individuals, this seems to be an under-
represented category. This is concerning because this age group certainly still
experiences cyberbullying. When victims have met their breaking points, we often hear
about tragic acts they commit to gain vengeance on their bullies or end their own
suffering.
Theoretical Basis
Research conducted by Bibb Latané and John M. Darley (1969), leading
developers of the bystander effect, indicated that when there is more than one witness to
an emergency situation the likelihood of bystander intervention is low. Their research is
the direct result of a woman’s murder in 1964 that was witnessed by 38 individuals, and
yet none of them reported the crime to police or went to the aid of the victim (p. 244).
While the witnesses’ failure to react could certainly be explained by apathy, Latané and
Darley felt there must be a reason, other than apathy, to explain the reasons motivating
their behavior (p. 244). The theory the researchers developed, the bystander effect,
attempts to explain the phenomenon of how bystanders react during an emergency or
particular situation. Latané and Darley (1969) indicated that bystanders must go through
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 8
a series of steps before deciding whether or not to intervene (p. 247). The sequence of
steps are:
1. The bystander has to notice that something is happening. The external
event has to break into his/her thinking and intrude itself on his conscious
mind.
2. Once the person is aware of the event as something to be explained, it is
necessary that he/she interpret the event. Specifically, he/she must decide
that there is something wrong, that this ambiguous event is an emergency.
3. If the bystander decided that something is indeed wrong, he must next
decide that he has a responsibility to act.
4. If the person does decide that he should help, he must decide what form of
assistance he can give.
5. Finally, of course, he must decide how to implement his choice and form
of intervention. (p. 247)
Latané and Darley’s (1969) controlled experiments indicated that instances of
intervention were markedly lower when there was more than one witness present. They
theorized that this reaction is due to individuals entering a “state of pluralistic ignorance”
(Latané & Daley, 1969, p. 249) or people trying to appear calm while looking for cues
and see that others appear calm. This means that people gauge their reactions based off
of what the reactions are of those around them. If other bystanders are communicating
(verbally or nonverbally) that the situation is not an emergency, then others will likely
not intervene.
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 9
Though bystander apathy originated in the psychological field, this researcher
believes the theory has relevance to the field of communication studies. In the
psychological field, the theory is used to determine the process people go through during
emergencies. In communication studies, the theory can be used to determine how people
communicate with others and with themselves during specific situations. Therefore, this
theory easily lends itself to the study of bystander behavior in an online environment
during cyberbullying communication acts. Because of the public nature of the Internet, it
can be perceived by users that content is being viewed by more than just one individual.
Thus, every person witnessing a cyberbullying encounter can reason that they are a part
of a larger group and use that as a way to begin to determine their level of responsibility.
The witness would then, theoretically, begin to assess the situation through the series of
steps laid out by Latané and Darley (1969). Applying the bystander apathy theory to
witnesses of cyberbullying, this research seeks to determine how individuals maneuver
through the above-outlined steps and determine if they will intervene to communicate a
need to stop bullying to the bully or communicate a sense of being defended to the
victim. Additionally, the study seeks to determine if cyberbullying communication acts
could be curbed by the development of a prosocial bystander empowerment educational
movement.
A subset of bystander apathy is pluralistic ignorance. “Pluralistic ignorance refers
to a collective perception or definition of the emergency situation as not being a real
emergency as an effect of social comparison between the passive bystanders”
(Thornberg, 2007, p. 5). If, during a cyberbullying incident, no one is coming to the aid
of the victim, it is reasonable to assume that any other witness will not intervene because
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 10
the situation is not interpreted as an emergency due to lack of communicated responses. It
is also possible that since the online world is vastly public, individuals fall prey to the
fear of social blunders (Thornberg, 2007, p. 5). According to Thornberg (2007) “the
mere presence of other bystanders can also inhibit a witness from intervening or helping
in an emergency situation because he or she is afraid of looking foolish or behaving in an
embarrassing way in front of others” (p. 5).
Pluralistic ignorance directly ties into diffusion of responsibility (Thornberg,
2007, p. 6). The more people who witness an act of cyberbullying the less likely
someone is to step up and intervene. This is because responsibility is shared by all of the
witnesses which results in no one acting. Each witness assumes that someone else will
intervene. This phenomenon was witnessed in Caplan and Hay’s (as cited in Thornberg,
2007) study of preschool children. When a classmate was in distress, very few children
tried to help. When they were questioned about their actions, they indicated that it was
the teacher’s responsibility to help. It was also noted that there was no instructional
teachings offered to let the students know it was okay to help.
In Thornberg’s (2007) study, seven rationalization reasons were given by students
observed in an emergency situation. Those reasons were “trivialization, dissociation,
embarrassment association, busy working priority, compliance to a competitive norm,
audience modelling, and responsibility transfer” (Thornberg, 2007, p. 8). The author of
this study proposes that these categories can work hand-in-hand with the bystander
apathy theory. When a bystander notices an episode of cyberbullying, the first step
would be to determine their level of responsibility. The bystander would have to engage
in internal dialogue, as defined by Buber’s dialogic ethics (Griffin, 2012, p. 79) with
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 11
himself/herself to decide if they are responsible to act since he/she witnessed the offense.
Once determined, the bystander would progress through the steps as outlined in the
bystander apathy theory. Once those steps have all been completed the bystander will
either intervene or remain silent. If through internal dialogue and results of the bystander
apathy theory process, he/she decides not to intervene, it is at that point that he/she is
considered a non-helper and must decide which category his/her reason for not helping
fits into as outlined by Thornberg (2007). Those categories are:
1. Trivialization – The cyberbullying episode was deemed a non-emergency
by the bystander. The incident was trivialized in two ways. either
a. Unserious labeling - genuinely feeling it was not important
b. Normalization - the act itself was part of normal behavior
witnessed online
2. Dissociation – The cyberbullying episode was deemed an emergency
situation, but the bystander dissociated him/herself from the victim and
their distress. Dissociation can come in two forms.
a. Incident dissociation – the bystander was not involved in any
previous encounters with the victim that preceded the emergency
situation
b. Relationship dissociation –the bystander does not consider the
victim to be a friend and does not warrant intervention
3. Embarrassment Association – The cyberbullying episode was deemed an
emergency by the witness, but the witness associates the situation with
embarrassment. There are two forms of embarrassment association.
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 12
a. Victim-oriented embarrassment association – the bystander
believes it must be embarrassing for the victim to have to endure
the bullying so the bystander does not intervene as a way to avoid
causing more embarrassment for the victim.
b. Self-oriented embarrassment association – the bystander believes it
would be embarrassing for him/her to intervene and is concerned
he/she might become the next target of bullying.
4. Audience Modeling – The course of action and seriousness of the
cyberbullying episode is determined by other people’s reactions. If other
witnesses do nothing, this bystander does nothing.
5. Busy Working Priority – The cyberbullying episode is deemed an
emergency, but the bystander has other priorities to take care of and does
not intervene.
6. Compliance with a Competitive Norm – The cyberbullying episode is
deemed an emergency, but instead favors a competitive norm. In this
instance, it would be norm of reciprocity which indicates we should help
those who help us. If the victim has never helped the witness, there is no
reason for the witness to help the victim.
7. Responsibility Transfer – The cyberbullying episode is deemed an
emergency, but the bystander does not feel personally responsible to help
the victim. He/she transfers the responsibility to other witnesses (perhaps
friends or family)
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 13
Cyberbullying witnesses may also experience an altruism dilemma. According to
Korte (1971) “An altruism dilemma may be defined as a situation where an individual is
faced with an opportunity to give assistance to some distressed person while at the same
time there exists some restraining forces that inhibit help-giving” (p. 149). Restraining
forces could be explained by the categories defined by Thornberg (2007). If bystanders
truly are experiencing altruism dilemmas when confronted with communication acts
considered to be cyberbullying, this research may help illuminate a new method of
encouraging bystanders to intervene.
The Literature
Why Bullying Occurs. Thornberg, Rosenqvist, and Johansson (2012) conducted a
study to determine reasons why bullying occurs. The study was administered to 215
Swedish upper-secondary school students via a questionnaire. The results of their study
give a better understanding of how older teenagers explain why bullying occurs with a
breakdown of three main categories (bully attributing, victim attributing, and social
context attributing) and nine subcategories (psychosocial problems, social positioning,
emotionally-driven, thoughtlessness, other bully attributing, deviance, group pressure,
inviting school environment, and peer conflicts) for bullying causes (Thornberg,
Rosenqvist, & Johansson, 2012). Common reasons for bullying, as demonstrated in
previous research, are attributed to the victim being different. This explanation was not
refuted by the study results, with 44% of students referencing “deviance” (Thornberg,
Rosenqvist, & Johansson, 2012) as a cause for bullying. However, interestingly, 80% of
students listed causal explanations for bullying to the bully themselves, meaning that the
bully has psychosocial problems (Thornberg, Rosenqvist, & Johansson, 2012). These
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 14
findings are interesting because attributing bullying behavior to the bully himself/herself
shows a higher cognitive understanding of human behavior that is generally not
demonstrated in adolescents.
Hoover and Milner (2005) discussed rituals of humiliation and exclusion that are
practiced by adults and adolescents. It is theorized that these rituals can lead to acts of
bullying. There are humiliation, banishment, hazing, teasing, and rumor spreading rituals
that individuals of all ages participate in (Hoover & Milner, 2005, pp. 1-9). Several of
these forms are subtle ways of bullying, while others are much more direct. However,
any one of them may crossover into cyberbullying. For example, if an individual is
banned from their collective social group by the leader, they are experiencing a terrible
fate that may lead to terror. “Banning an individual from participation in his or her
community is the most extreme form of dehumanization, short of execution…” (Hoover
& Milder, 2005, p. 2). Being excluded from one’s group could potentially open up
avenues for bullying; verbal, physical, and cyber.
Bullying as viewed by adolescents. After looking at explanations for bullying
acts, the next step to understanding bystander behavior is to look at how adolescents view
the general act of bullying as well as the various strategies for dealing with bullying.
Camodeca and Goossens (2005) conducted a survey of 311 children (average age of 11
years) to determine what they think would be effective means of stopping the cycle of
bullying. For the purpose of the study the “children were grouped into bullies, followers
of the bully, defenders of the victims, outsiders, victims and those not involved” and
“items were presented to the children in three different perspectives (imagine you are the
victim, the bully, or a witness)” (Camodeca & Goossens, 2005, p. 94). They were then
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 15
asked to determine if they would react with assertiveness, nonchalance, or retaliation.
The results indicated that children would more often choose to react assertively,
demonstrating that they understand a prosocial (behavior that promotes social acceptance
and friendship) method is a better conflict resolution tool than retaliation or doing
nothing. However, if they were imagining they were in the bully they were more likely
to select retaliation as a way to deal with a bullying act (Camodeca & Goossens, 2005).
Defining Cyberbullying. A literature review of cyberbullying conducted by
Kiriakidis and Kavoura (2010) concluded that there is a lack of an operational definition
for cyberbullying (p. 83). Because of this, definitions for cyberbullying are varied.
According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2014), cyberbullying is defined as “the
electronic posting of mean-spirited messages about a person (as a student) often done
anonymously.” Strom and Strom’s definition of cyberbullying is “cyber harassment
involves using an electronic medium to threaten or harm others. E-mail, chat rooms, cell
phones, instant messaging, pagers, text messaging, and online voting booths are tools
used to inflict humiliation, fear, and a sense of helplessness” (as stated in Kiriakidis &
Kavoura, 2010, p. 83). Nansel et al. and Olweus defined face-to-face bullying “as a type
of aggression that is intended to harm another, that is repeated over time and that involves
a power inequality between victims and perpetrators” (as cited in Spitzberg & Cupach,
2007, p. 171), but it certainly can be applied to an online bullying situation. For the
purpose of this study, the definition of cyberbullying that will be utilized is the definition
posited by Patchin and Hinduja; “…willful and repeated harm inflicted through the
medium of electronic text” (as cited in Kiriakidis & Kavoura 2010, p. 83). Kiriakidis and
Kavoura concluded that “most definitions of cyberbullying convey that the behavior is
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 16
hostile and intentional. Not all of them incorporate the repetition of the behavior” (p. 83).
The repetitive nature of cyberbullying can possibly lead to prolonged psychological
harm.
Who Cyberbullies. Anyone can cyberbully. If they have access to the internet
and a desire to inflict pain on another person, they can cyberbully.
Feinberg and Robey (2008) mention the following:
Cyberbullies and victims are as likely to be female as male and more likely to be
older, rather than younger, adolescents. Some cyberbullies and victims are
strangers, but most often they know each other. Some cyberbullies remain
anonymous or work in groups, making it difficult to identify the abuser. (p.27)
With that said, there is still very little concrete information on those who cyberbully and
their motivations (Kowalski, Limber,& Agatson, 2012). According to Kowalski, Limber,
and Agatson (2012) “it is reasonable to assume that children who cyberbully share some
(or even many)” of the characteristics traditional face-to-face bullies exhibit (p. 78).
Children with dominant and assertive personalities, low impulse control, unstable
tempers, promote violent behavior, demonstrate little empathy or compassion, are
aggressive toward adults, and have difficulty following rules are likely to be bullies.
Many of these characteristics can indicate the possibility of a cyberbully. It should be
noted that there are any number of reasons why those who choose to cyberbully do so.
Kowalski, Limber, and Agatson (2012) discuss a myriad of reasons ranging from
inadvertently cyberbullying, to retaliating against someone who has cyberbullied, to
engaging in the behavior simply out of boredom, amongst several other reasons.
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 17
Bystander behavior in traditional face-to-face situations. A study of bystander
behavior in traditional face-to-face bullying situations conducted by Easton and Aberman
(2008) revealed that while bystanders regularly remained silent when observing bullying,
they do surmise that their lack of action sends messages to the bully and the victim (p.
61). The messages assumed to be sent to the bully fell into three categories: 1) the
bystander is afraid of the bully, 2) the bystander accepts the bullying act itself and the
behavior of the bully or, 3) the bystander is a “friend” of the bully (Easton & Aberman,
2008, p. 61). Messages thought to be sent to the victim were “1. The victim has no
friends or anyone to stand up for him/her, 2. The bystanders support a bully’s assertions
or actions or, 3. Bystanders are afraid of the bully” (Easton & Aberman, 2008, p. 61).
According to Dr. Kate Roberts (2013) in an interview with Ciaran Connolly for
Nobullying.com, bystanders may not intervene because
… [they are as] reluctant as adults to speak up. You know, they don’t want to be
the whistleblower so to speak in the school setting or on the sports field or in front
of their peers and the bully and so you will find a bunch of students thinking the
exact same thing about that bullying student and no one is confronting that
person” (Physical Bullying and Bystanders section, para. 2).
The bystanders fall into plural ignorance. However, “bystanders are actually the most
critical person to be a deterrent for bullying because they are people that aren’t the target
so they are not seen as weaker and yet if they are confronting and assertive, the bully will
be very likely to back down” (Connolly & Roberts, 2013, Bystanders section, para. 2). In
essence, bystanders alone could potentially end the cycle of bullying.
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 18
Research Rationale
Cyberbullying and its implications are just now starting to make headlines around
the world. Unfortunately, it has taken tragic events, such as bullicide, suicide by bullying
(Halladay, 2010, p. 4), for people to start paying more attention to what is transpiring in
online environments. Victims can no longer seek refuge at home because in today’s
technology-addicted culture, the aggressors continue bullying their victims online for the
entire world to see. Due to several characteristics of the Internet (ability to post
anonymously, instant contact gratification, an overall public environment), being attacked
in such a public manner can be especially traumatizing for victims. “You can pass
around a note to classmates making fun of a peer, and it stays in the room…But when
you post that same note online, thousands can see it. The whole world becomes witness
and is invited to participate” (Holladay, 2010, p. 5).
However, because of the newness of this area, more research needs to be done
before it can be appropriately understood and possibly prevented. Previous research has
focused on cyberbullying and all facets in adolescent groups (Mason, 2008; Deiss,
Savage, & Tokunager, 2012), traditional bullying and all facets (Easton & Aberman,
2008), and workplace harassment. While this research has provided much insight on the
elements that feed into bullying, there is a lack of research on bystander behavior in an
online environment. Perhaps because of the same reasons people turn to cyberbullying
(anonymity, public environment) witnesses turn a blind eye to the hurtful encounters they
see. Previous research has also focused on adolescent and professional adult bullying.
Individuals at the college level are a demographic not extensively researched. Reasons
for this have not been determined. For this reason, this study will focus on researching at
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 19
the college level. Though there are many areas within college-age cyberbullying, this
research is aimed at one very important area, understanding bystander apathy. It is
essential to understand how a witness views his or her role in an aggressive online attack.
If research is able to determine the reasons people do or do not intervene in a
cyberbullying attack avenues may be created for educational programs that support
bystander interventions, create prosocial bystander empowerment movements, or
assessment tool development to determine one’s intervention plausibility.
Research Questions
Given the prevalence and potentially tragic consequences of cyberbullying, the
above discussion of bystander involvement (or lack of) leads to some pressing questions.
As discussed in the literature review, there are many reasons as to why bystanders do or
do not intervene to help the victim. There are many variables that witnesses consider
when they determine if they are going to intervene in a cyberbullying encounter (Easton
& Aberman, 2008). These reasons are inherently personal; but it is necessary to identify
the reasons if the behavior is to be understood and potentially altered. Therefore the
following two questions will serve as this study’s research focus.
RQ1: What are the reasons cyberbullying witnesses choose to intervene or stay silent?
RQ2: How do the steps cyberbullying witnesses go through to determine if they will
intervene fit within the steps laid out by Latané and Darley?
In chapter two, the researcher has attempted to articulate exactly why further
research needs to be undertaken in order to change the current trend of non-intervention
by cyberbullying witnesses. A review of prior cyberbullying studies and literature has
proven a gap in bystander research is evident. The following chapter will outline the
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 20
methods used to address the research questions as well as discuss the data gathered
throughout the research.
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 21
Chapter 3. Scope and Methodology
The Scope of the Study
The focus of this research was people- or behavior-oriented. According to Rubin,
Rubin, Haridakis, and Piele (2010) “People- or behavior-oriented research focuses on
actions and reactions of people” (p. 218). Behavior-oriented research was ideal for the
overall premise of this research because it allowed for self-reports of attitudes and
behaviors (Rubin, 2010, p. 218) relating to how they behaved as bystanders online. This
study combined both qualitative and quantitative measures to gain an in-depth
understanding of bystander behavior in cyberbullying encounters. Initial quantitative
data-gathering methods were conducted through a cross-sectional survey to identify those
who have had previous experience with witnessing cyberbullying episodes. A
cyberbullying episode was defined, for the purpose of this study, as a hurtful, derogatory,
slanderous, or untrue statement posted in a public forum for anyone to see and/or
comment on. This study utilized qualitative methods to connect each phase of data
collection and to expand on individual experiences. This allowed for a more scrupulous
understanding of how bystander behavior is perceived in cyberbullying encounters. The
research is empirical because the researcher “look[ed] beyond [herself] to observe and to
gather evidence” (Rubin, 2010, p. 198).
Scope. Due to the newness of this specific research direction, it was necessary for
both qualitative and quantitative approaches to be utilized in the initial exploratory stage
of researching. Neuman (2011) stated exploratory research is used when the “subject is
very new, we know little or nothing about it, and no one has yet explored it (p. 38).
While much research has been done on face-to-face bullying and bystander behavior
(Easton & Aberman, 2008), it was determined through the literature review discussed
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 22
above, a gap in research exists in understanding how witnesses view their roles of
responsibility in cyberbullying encounters, particularly of the college-age category.
Though the focus of this research is new, it is cumulative (Rubin, 2010) in the respect
that it is based on and building upon previous bullying research. The present study aimed
to aid in the formulation of more precise questions for future research (Neuman, 2011, p.
38). The research gap warranted a closer look to attempt to identity how bystanders view
their roles, determine if they will intervene, and whether they believe this troubling social
phenomenon would benefit by the creation of new prosocial programs. It is important to
note that Neuman (2011) stated “exploratory research rarely yields definitive answers
(p.38).” The study did not aim to deduce definitive answers; rather the researcher hoped
to shed light on and make sense of events that a cyberbullying witness experiences.
The population for this study was derived from undergraduate students at a
regional higher education campus in Indiana. Research was limited to approximately 40
lower-level college students. The sought after peer group had yet to be focused on for
research in any respect to cyberbullying. It has been argued that cyberbullying is only
experienced in primary school and once an individual matures into high school or
becomes of legal age that online altercations are considered cyberharassment (Aftab,
2014, para. 8). It is the belief of this researcher that bullying is bullying; no matter the
age, method, or channel. Cyberbullying and derogatory communication certainly impacts
all individuals no matter their age. Due to the lack of research for college
undergraduates, younger age groups as well as those out of college were a hard limit for
the premise of this study.
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 23
Methodology of the Study
Since this study specifically sought reasons behind how bystanders behave and
interpret cyberbullying encounters, a survey proved to be the most effective quantitative
research method available to identity respondents with experience. “As researchers, we
utilize questionnaires or interviews to learn people’s beliefs or opinions…” (Neuman,
2011, p. 48). Because this study looked to broadly gain an understanding of how people
assess cyberbullying situations, the survey was an effective tool. The survey allowed for
respondents to be categorized as to their level of past experiences with cyberbullying.
From the qualitative approach, field interviews (phone, e-mail correspondence, video
chat, face-to-face) were conducted in an environment encouraging interviewees to
“express themselves in the forms in which they normally speak, think, and organize
reality” (Neuman, 2011, p. 450). Field interviews are intensive and time consuming but
they have “an explicit purpose: to learn about the member and setting” (Neuman, 2011, p.
451) which is ideal in understanding how they reacted while observing cyberbullying
encounters.
Research methods. The basis of the study was grounded in analyzing behavior
from past events; therefore, it was conducted in two phases. The first phase was a survey
determining the respondents’ experience with cyberbullying encounters. The second
phase of research was conducted through field interviews with those who indicated they
had experienced or witnessed cyberbullying. Unlike survey interviews and friendly
conversation, semi-structured field interviews focus on “the member’s perspective and
experiences” (Neuman, 2011, p. 450) allowing for a better understanding of the sequence
of steps they go through when determining if they will intervene or remain silent.
Eriksson and Kovalainen (2008) indicated that “materials are somewhat systematic and
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 24
comprehensive, while the tone of the interview is fairly conversational and informal” (p.
82). A fairly informal, yet somewhat structured, environment allowed the respondents to
freely speak of their experiences and opinions. It also provided an outlet for them to
candidly discuss how they decided if they would intervene in a cyberbullying situation.
Data collection. A brief “Cyberbullying Experience” survey (Appendix B)
served as the initial data collecting device. The survey contained basic questions to
determine the respondents’ age, year in college, if they have experience with
cyberbullying, and if yes to the previous questions, in what regard is their experience:
victim, bully, or witness. The survey took no more than 10 minutes to complete. The
survey was constructed through SurveyMonkey.com and sent out to the main researcher’s
students, resulting in a convenience sample. Respondents who reported no experience
witnessing cyberbullying were screened out from further study research, as the study
sought to understand bystander behavior and impacts on cyberbullying situations. Focus
groups and field interviews were conducted on the smaller remaining group of
respondents that allowed for a more thorough understanding of “people’s beliefs and
opinions” (Neuman, 2011, p. 48). The interviews lasted approximately 45-60 minutes
and took place face-to-face and via e-mail correspondence.
Due to time constraints, the population was limited to roughly 40 underclassmen
from the researcher’s primary teaching institution. The survey resulted in 11 respondents
with which to conduct focus groups or individual interviews. By keeping the number of
respondents and interviewees low, more time was available for one-on-one contact
between the respondent and the researcher. This allowed for qualitative techniques to be
used in answering “why and how come questions” (Rubin, 2010, p. 221). In the
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 25
interviews, respondents were asked questions to determine if they followed a common
problem-solving process when faced with cyberbullying. These questions were used to
elicit information that would give insight to the communication attitudes and beliefs
surrounding a bystander’s role when observing someone being victimized by a
cyberbully.
The initial survey was delivered electronically to students through A web-link
provided by SurveyMonkey.com. Upon arriving on the survey landing page, the student
was presented with a description of the study and informed consent (Appendix A) form.
Complete confidentiality, aside from the researcher, was ensured. The survey description
was expressly stated that participation was voluntary and the results would only be used
for better understanding of bystander behavior in cyberbullying encounters. It was also
made clear that this research was being conducted for the requirements of a master’s
thesis.
Data Analysis
Data collected was analyzed to ensure that it met internal and external consistency
standards. This was done by comparing cyberbullying witness accounts to prior research
conducted on bystanders in face-to-face bullying situations. Information gathered from
interviews was “organized into conceptual categories” and common themes were
determined (Neuman, 2011, p. 510). Research questions were tentatively answered and
new questions were created when information was analyzed through the illustrative
method. The bystander effect theory provided “empty boxes” (Neuman, 2011, p. 519)
that were filled in as data was analyzed and put into the respective steps of the decision
making process the bystander must go through.
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 26
Validity and Reliability
After survey responses were submitted, the researcher ensured the validity and
reliability of the research were on par with ethical communication research standards.
This was done by looking for common themes (Rubin, 2010, p. 202) among respondent
answers to the survey questions. Common themes in their answers boosted the validity
of the reasons and processes a bystander manipulates when deciding if they will intervene
on behalf of a cyberbullying victim. This is the first study to specifically look at how a
bystander determines whether he/she will intervene. Reliability of this study was based
upon previous research utilizing the bystander apathy theory (Easton & Aberman, 2008;
Fawzi & Goodwin, 2011; Latané, & Darley, 1969) in emergency situations. These
studies have proven time and time again that when people are in a group they are less
likely to assume responsibility and act in an emergency. The hypothesis held by the
researcher, while not definitely proven true, did tentatively identify that cyberbullying
witnesses do not intervene because they are internalizing the situation as a public episode.
Therefore the internal and external validity and reliability of this study was upheld
(Rubin, 2010, p. 203).
Ethical Considerations
Cyberbullying is a highly sensitive and subjective issue. Those involved may not
want to admit they have been cyberbullied, were/are a cyberbully, or have witnessed
cyberbullying. The delicate nature of cyberbullying and the range of emotions it can
trigger was expressly noted by the researcher. It was the researcher’s intention to be
“accurate, honest, and precise when conducting research and when discussing the
meaning of the data” (Rubin, 2010, p. 204).
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 27
With ethical considerations in mind, this study was developed to adhere to the standards
discussed by Neuman (2011), “Never cause unnecessary or irreversible harm to
participants, secure prior voluntary consent when possible, and never unnecessarily
humiliate, degrade, or release harmful information about specific individuals that was
collected for research purposes” (p. 145). Eriksson and Kovalainen (2008) postulated
that “in all social research…ethical issues require taking into account questions that go
beyond ethics” (p. 62). They go onto reiterate that “ethical principles of informed
consent, the avoidance of deception, harm or risk, and Kant’s universal principle of
respect, treating others always as ends and never as means, all go hand in hand with the
ways we see…knowledge production” (Ericksson & Kovalainen, 2008, p. 62). To ensure
these ethical standards, the integrity of Gonzaga University, the field of communication
studies, and this researcher are upheld the study was conducted in a safe and confidential
environment.
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 28
Chapter 4. The Study
Introduction
Cyberbullying and bystander behavior in traditional face-to-face bullying
instances have both been extensively researched. However, research combining the two
components is lacking. The overall objective of this study was to determine how
individuals view themselves and their level of responsibility to intervene when
confronted with dialogue that could be considered cyberbullying. Due to the small
sample size of this study and the complexity of the topic being researched, the study
allowed for a more in-depth understanding of how individuals choose to respond when
confronted with cyberbullying.
Data Analysis
An initial survey was administered through SurveryMonkey.com and a series of
one focus group discussion, two individual interviews, and one e-mail exchange were
held. The initial background informational survey (see Appendix B) contained six
questions and the option to leave contact information for future participation in focus
group discussions or individual interviews. The questions were made up of open ended
questions, scaled questions, and fixed-answer questions. The questions were generally
basic, but were specifically set up in that way to determine the individual’s experience
with cyberbullying episodes and their role associated with those episodes. This was to
ensure that only candidates with cyberbullying exposure were invited for further
discussion.
The initial survey was made available to a total of 40 undergraduate students from
October 27th 2014 till November 11th 2014. These were students in two undergraduate
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 29
courses being taught by the researcher of this study. Of the 40 students, 57.5% (n = 23)
voluntarily took the survey; 27.5% (n = 11) were male and 30% (n = 12) were female.
The average age of the respondents was 25.5 years. Six students (15%) were disqualified
from further participation in focus group discussions or one-on-one interviews due to age,
and six respondents (15%) were disqualified due to not having any direct experience with
cyberbullying. The 11 (27.50%) remaining students were all invited to participate in one-
on-one interviews or a focus group discussion. Seven (63.63%) students chose to
participate in further discussion; three respondents (27.27%) chose to participate in a
focus group discussion, two respondents (18.18%) chose individual interviews, and one
respondent (9.09%) chose to provide further reflection through e-mail.
Coding of the survey results was completed through open-coding (Neuman,
2011). This allowed the researcher to identify themes in the respondent’s answers and
determine the extent of cyberbullying experience the respondent had. Open coding also
enabled determination of individual roles associated with cyberbullying experiences the
respondents had. Open coding ensured that the appropriate survey respondents were
invited for further reflection.
The focus group and individual interviews were both very informal open-
discussion settings. Participants were provided with an overview of the thesis topic, the
theory guiding the research, and what was hoping to be gained by the research. In order
to maintain ethical research practices, participants were assured they were not being
judged by their comments and encouraged to speak freely, whether or not they thought
their comments would be beneficial.
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 30
Coding of the focus group discussion, individual interviews, and e-mail exchange
was done through axial and selective coding (Neuman, 2011). The combination of these
two different types of coding allowed the researcher to further categorize information
through axial coding by organizing common ideas and themes (Neuman, 2011, p. 513)
that emerged during discussions. Finally, with selective coding, the researcher was able
to determine three major themes in relation to bystander behavior in cyberbullying
episodes.
Results of the Study
The Survey. The initial survey was used to determine an individual’s level of
experience with cyberbullying, the way in which they were involved (e.g. bully, victim,
bystander, combination of all), and if they intervened in the situation. Of the total 23
respondents that took the survey, 30.43% (n = 7) had no experience with cyberbullying,
26.09% (n = 6) had experienced one to two episodes of cyberbullying, 34.78% (n = 8)
had experienced three to four episodes of cyberbullying, and 8.70% (n = 2) had
experienced five or more episodes of cyberbullying.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
5+ episodes
3-4 episodes
1-2 episodes
no experience
Figure 1: What would you rate your experience with cyberbulling (e.g. witnessed, participated in , was a victim
of)?
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 31
Particularly relevant to this study was the number of individuals who responded
they were witnesses (or bystanders) to cyberbullying episodes. Of the 23 initial
respondents, 18 (78.26%) answered the question “What was your role in the
cyberbullying episodes?” and five (21.73%) skipped the question. As shown below in
Figure 2, of those respondents who had witnessed a cyberbullying episode, over half or
61.11% (n = 11), of the respondents indicated they were witnesses in the cyberbullying
episodes they encountered. 11.11% (n = 2) of the respondents replied they were victims
and 27.78% (n = 5) said their roles were a combination of all possibilities. These
responses indicate that cyberbullying is still a relevant issue and that individuals do
notice cyberbullying while interacting on social media networks. For clarification, these
individuals are those that do notice the cyberbullying episodes, but are outside witnesses
and not directly involved in the altercation.
65.21% (n = 15) of the survey respondents indicated they do not intervene when
they witness a cyberbullying episode. Only 21.73% (n = 5) of respondents said they did
Bully0%
Victim11%
Bystander61%
Combo28%
Figure 2: What was your role in the cyberbullying episodes?
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 32
intervene, and 13.04% (n = 3) replied they had not personally witnessed an act of
cyberbullying. These responses highlight the need to research further why individuals
choose not to intervene when they witness a cyberbullying episode. The need to discuss
in more detail the reasons behind behavior in online environments can only be
determined through focus group discussion or one-on-one interviews.
Focus Group and Interview Discussions. In-depth focus group discussions, one-
on-one interviews, and one e-mail exchange allowed for a better understanding of how
the survey respondents behave when witnessing a cyberbullying episode. Another
guiding goal for this study was to attempt to determine the reasons why individuals
choose to intervene or stay silent when witnessing cyberbullying. The questions outlined
in Appendix C directed the course of discussion but were not specifically handed out to
or asked directly of each focus group participant and interviewee. During the focus group
discussions and one-on-one interviews, the researcher took basic notes that mainly
focused on capturing common themes amongst question answers and key quotes. Though
reasons for and against intervention were numerous and varied, as previously mentioned,
the researcher determined three common themes addressing why bystanders do not
intervene when confronted with cyberbullying. The discussions and results of them are
detailed below.
Theme 1: Lack of Responsibility. The first theme that emerged was a lack of
responsibility. Many respondents indicated they felt they did not need to intervene when
witnessing cyberbullying. Focus group participant #1 (personal communication)
indicated that their lack of intervention was due to the simple reasoning that “they do not
need to be involved” (November 4, 2014). This reason was a fairly common response
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 33
amongst focus group respondents and fits with Thornberg’s (2007) non-helper category
of dissociation as discussed in chapter two of this thesis (p. 9). Likewise, focus group
participant #1 stated “If I don’t know the people or the story, I won’t intervene” (personal
communication, November 4, 2014). These students felt they were not previously
associated with the situation and therefore did not feel compelled to intervene when
witnessing someone being cyberbullied.
For all of focus group participants, individual interviewees, and the e-mail
responder, the way they determined their responsibility to intervene was how well they
knew the individuals in the altercations. If they were close friends or family members,
they indicated they might consider intervening. But even then, their final decision was
heavily dependent on whether or not they knew what the back-story of the situation was,
whether or not they would only complicate matters more, or if serious detrimental or
dangerous actions were being threatened to the cyberbullying victim. The e-mail
responder stated “If I don't feel like I have a good understanding of what the situation is
and what the context behind what I am seeing is, I rarely feel comfortable getting
involved (personal communication, November 15, 2014). Individual interviewee #2
indicated that he does “not intervene in cyberbullying encounters because there might be
somebody else who is witnessing the encounter that knows the victim more closely
giving them more responsibility to act” (personal communication, November 10, 2014).
These two responses indicate that the bystander is allowing diffusion of responsibility to
guide their reactions.
Theme 2: Trivialization of Situation. Individual interviewee #1 indicated that she
did not really know if what is being seen constitutes as cyberbullying and therefore does
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 34
not comment or send a private message to the person being bullied (personal
communication, November 4, 2014). The individual has subconsciously labeled most of
the altercations witnessed as unserious, thus trivializing (Thornberg, 2007 p. 8) the
encounter. This same participant indicated that in order for her to take action and
intervene in a situation witnessed online, the episode would have to include threats of
physical violence to the victim or hearing rumors of the victim potentially committing
suicide. The reason behind this was stated that “the emotional side of what is being said
is something I do not consider. I am not a sensitive person” (Interview participant #1,
personal communication, November 4, 2014). This response brought up a concern not
previously considered by the researcher; individuals assign different meanings to words
based on how they are psychologically developed. If someone is more sensitive, they are
likely to interpret something said in jest as more serious and take hurtful comments to
heart.
Theme 3: Fear of Embarrassment. Another common category that reasons for
non-intervention fall into is the embarrassment association (Thornberg, 2007, p. 9)
category. Focus group participant #2 stated “I don’t want them [the bully] to be mean to
me, so I’ll stay out of it” (personal communication, November 4, 2014). This sentiment
was reinforced by the other individuals in the focus group discussion. E-mail responder
(personal communication) stated that “I don't feel like publicly addressing the issue will
solve anything” (November 15, 2014). While this is not explicitly stating he would be
embarrassed, it does correlate to the idea. Taking a chance and standing up for someone
in a public forum and having no effect can be embarrassing.
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 35
All of the discussions the researcher had with respondents shed light on the
process cyberbullying bystanders go through when confronted with a cyberbullying
episode. It is a complicated, ever-changing, and multi-faceted topic. Reasons for
intervening or staying silent in a cyberbullying encounter are highly subjective to the
witnesses’ personal frame of reference.
Discussion
This study focused on bystander behavior in cyberbullying encounters and
attempted to determine the process an individual goes through when witnessing
cyberbullying as well as shed light on the reasons given for intervention and non-
intervention in relation to Latané and Darley’s (1969) theory of bystander apathy. Other
theoretical components, pluralistic ignorance and diffusion of responsibility, from
Thornberg (2007) were also considered when initially theorizing bystander behavior and
considered again when analyzing survey and interview results. It should also be noted
that while bystanders are not purposefully intending to harm a cyberbullying victim, they
are inadvertently doing so in regard to Buber’s (1970) philosophy of how to treat others.
By not intervening, bystanders are allowing cyberbullies to engage victims in I-It
relationships. They are being manipulated and robbed of the right to be treated as a
valued individual. The victims are experiencing amorality (Christians, 2007, p. 96), in
which their humanness is devoid by the technological order that CMC has created.
Pluralistic Ignorance and Diffusion of Responsibility. In response to the study’s
first research question, RQ1, various reasons were determined for intervention and non-
intervention in cyberbullying encounters. Pluralistic ignorance suggests that individuals
base their reactions of an event off of how those around them behave. This notion is
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 36
inherently linked with diffusion of responsibility. Because media platforms are
considered public, it is natural to believe more than just one person is witnessing the act,
thus believing someone else will step up and intervene. Interviewee #2 specifically
touched on this idea and attributed it to one of his main reasons for not intervening when
he witnesses cyberbullying. Though this could be seen as anecdotal, the study does
support the notions of pluralistic ignorance and diffusion of responsibility. While this
study focused on behavior in online environments, it does reinforce much of the previous
research conducted on bystander behavior in traditional face-to-face emergencies and
bullying (Camodeca & Goossens, 2005; Connolly & Roberts, 2013; Easton & Aberman,
2008; Thornberg, 2007).
Bystander Apathy Theory. This study’s second research question, RQ2, asked,
“How do the steps cyberbullying witnesses go through to determine if they will intervene
fit within the steps laid out by Latané and Darley?” Interviews and focus group
discussions did not yield enough information to definitively determine how the steps
match. Though there is anecdotal information that ties into the steps outlined in
bystander apathy. The first step, as laid out by Latané and Darley (1969) is that an
individual must notice that something is happening. All participants in the second phase
of research indicated that they noticed cyberbullying episodes regularly; whether that was
on their Facebook news feeds, an online gaming platform, or through other social
networking sites. In step two, the individual must then interpret the event. Some
respondents did interpret the events as an emergency, whereas others trivialized the
situations (for various reasons). In step three, the individual must determine their level of
responsibility. Most of the respondents in this study did not feel they had a responsibility
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 37
to act whenever they encountered cyberbullying (reasons discussed above). The one
respondent that mentioned he felt a level of responsibility stated “I believe that I have a
responsibility not to ignore abuse of any kind, and I believe I have a responsibility to
demonstrate that people shouldn't ever feel alone. I am obviously more aware of what
happens with my friends than anyone else, but no one should have to put up with verbal
insults and cyberbullying” (personal communication, November 15, 2014). This response
is encouraging, however, the respondent went on to state that he does not intervene in
every episode that might constitute cyberbullying. The survey results indicated that
61.11% of respondents do not intervene. This is alarming and needs to be better
understood. The fourth and fifth steps outlined in the bystander apathy theory are for an
individual to determine what form of assistance can be given to the victim and then
implementing the choice that has been made. The study infers that all cyberbullying
witnesses maneuver through this process, but that they may not be cognizant of the
individual steps. This could be due to any number of reasons but was not a specific focus
of this study. Overall, the results of studying bystander behavior through the bystander
apathy theory add important new elements to the rhetoric of cyberbullying.
Many more concerns, not previously known to this researcher, were brought up
during the focus groups and interview discussions. Technology is constantly changing
and advancing. Because cyberbullying is a product of advancements in technology, it is
rapidly changing too. Developers are readily producing new social media applications
that are changing the ways in which individuals can attack, bully, and degrade others.
Many of these applications were mentioned during the focus group discussions (e.g.
yikyak, ask.fm, sub-tweeting, etc). It was also blatantly clear that the simple fact that
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 38
everyone interprets words and situations differently, that cyberbullying will always be a
complicated problem. Therefore, the following chapter considers the limitations of this
study and makes recommendations for future research in regard to curbing cyberbullying
and encouraging bystanders to accept responsibility and intervene.
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 39
Chapter 5. Summaries and Conclusion
This study demonstrates that cyberbullying bystanders are maneuvering their way
through a series of steps, similar to the process outlined by Latané and Darley (1969)
though they are not especially cognizant of the process. More importantly though, the
study has shed light on three keys themes as to why bystanders do not intervene and how
the evolution of technology and new social media platforms complicates cyberbullying
intervention as a whole. Upon completion of the study, limitations of the study and
recommendations for future research were identified. They are discussed below.
Limitations of the Study
This study was limited in three ways; a small sample size which resulted in few
eligible respondents for further discussion, lack of willingness of qualified individuals to
participate in focus group discussions &/or individual interviews as well as a short time-
frame to conduct the survey and follow-up interviews. These limitations are addressed in
the following section.
Due to the relatively small sample size of only 40 students, the reach of the initial
survey was succinctly limited. This resulted in a very small number of eligible focus-
group and individual interview respondents. Had the initial convenience sample been
larger, more qualified individuals would have been identified to participate in the study’s
phase two. The small number of qualified respondents directly impacted the focus-group
and individual interviews. Many of the respondents did not want to participate in further
discussion. If they did want to participate, timing then became a challenge. The small
time-frame in which this study was conducted was also a limitation. If more time had
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 40
been available, more individuals could have been reached with the survey, thus resulting
in more qualified and willing respondents for further discussion.
However, the limited number of qualified respondents did allow for the
development of compelling rhetoric as to how they view their roles associated with
cyberbullying. The researcher was able to engage in dialogue with these respondents in
an attempt to fully understand how they determine their responsibility to intervene when
witnessing a cyberbullying act. It should be noted that the sentiments of these few
respondents may not be representative of a larger population.
Further Study or Recommendations
The focus-group discussions conducted for this survey highlighted the need for
future study on bystander behavior in cyberbullying encounters. It would benefit the
research area of cyberbullying for future studies to conduct more in-depth discussions
with respondents. Being able to spend more time with each individual respondent might
allow for a deeper insight as to their behavioral decisions when put into a cyberbullying
situation.
It would also be beneficial to conduct research on how education programs in K-
12 environments affect a person’s bystander behavior. Most of the focus-group
respondents had some form of anti-bullying exposure while they were minors. But all
did not have any educational trainings/discussions on cyberbullying and its potential
effects. These types of studies could open the door to new pro-social communication and
societal movements specifically designed to educate society on the importance of taking a
stand against cyberbullying; whether they are deeply connected with the victims or
general acquaintances.
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 41
Another area of concern that have ties to the realm of cyberbullying include how
new technological developments facilitate cyberbullying. The social media platforms in
which cyberbullying is taking place are constantly changing. This demonstrates the need
for educators and caregivers to be up-to-date and familiar with popular culture. Another
important area for future research is to determine how individuals internalize messages
that could or could not be considered cyberbullying. It is not unheard of for a group of
friends to pick on each other all in good fun. However, it would be helpful to delineate
what is normal and accepted from what is considered harassment and bullying.
Future research on cyberbullying and bullying could also focus on the
development of media literacy training materials for primary schools to institute in their
curriculum. This would prove beneficial by changing the status quo of what is acceptable
online behavior today, to an era where people are living more in sync with Christians’
(2007) social responsibility/communitarianism and Buber’s (1970) I-Thou philosophy of
how to treat one another. Training materials could also focus on ways bystanders can use
social media pro-socially to counter negative communication.
Conclusions
This study demonstrates that individuals do go through a step-by-step process
when determining whether or not they will intervene in a cyberbullying episode, though
they are not expressly cognizant of those steps. Looking at their behavior through
bystander apathy allowed for this researcher to understand the decisions and motivations
behind their actions. Analyzing these steps also allowed for the determination of three
reasoning themes for non-intervention; a lack of responsibility, trivialization of the
situation, and a fear of embarrassment Having a better understanding of these themes
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 42
will hopefully help in promoting bystander intervention and improved communication
patterns, thus lowering the rates of tragic cyberbullying and bullying consequences.
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 43
References
Buber, M. (1970). I and thou (W. Kaufmann, Trans.). New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons. (Original work published 1923).
Camodeca, M., & Goossens, F.A. (2005). Children’s opinions on effective strategies to
cope with bullying: The importance of bullying role and perspective. Educational
Research, 47:1. 93-105. DOI: 10.1080/0013188042000337587
Clifford Christians. (2007) A conversation about communication ethics with Clifford G.
Christians. Exploring communication ethics: interviews with influential scholars
in the field. New York: Peter Lang. p. 89-104.
Connolly, C. (October 2013). Nobullying. Dr Kate Roberts on bullying and bystanders.
Retrieved from No Bullying The Movement Against Bullying Web site:
http://nobullying.com/dr-kate-roberts-on-bullying-bystanders/
Cyberbullying. (2014). Retrieved May 28, 2014, from http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/cyberbullying
Deiss Jr., D. M., Savage, M. W. & Tokunaga, R. S. , 2012-05-24 “Antecedents and
Outcomes Associated With Deviant Online Behavior: Testing a Model of
Cyberbullying Perpetration” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
International Communication Association, Sheraton Phoenix Downtown,
Phoenix, AZ Online <PDF>. 2014-07-01
Easton, S. S., & Aberman, A. (2008). Bullying as a group communication process:
Messages created and interpreted by bystanders. Florida Communication Journal.
Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=66637878&site
=ehost-live
Eriksson, P., & Kovalainen, A. (2008). Qualitative methods in business research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fawzi, N. & Goodwin, B., 2011-05-25 “Witnesses of the Offense: What influences the
behavior of bystanders of cyberbullying?” Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the International Communication Association, TBA, Boston, MA Online
<PDF>. 2014-06-26
Feinberg, T., & Robey, N., (2008). Cyberbullying school leaders cannot ignore
cyberbullying but rather must understand its legal and psychological
ramifications. Principal leadership. 9, p. 10-14.
Griffin, E. (2012). A first look at communication theory. (8th ed.).New York, NY:
McGraw Hill
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 44
Holladay, J., (2010). Cyberbullying the stakes have never been higher for students – or
schools. Teaching tolerance. 38, p. 42-45.
Hoover, J., & Milner, C., (2005). Rituals of humiliation and exclusion. Researching
today’s youth. 1, p. 28-32.
Kiriakidis, S. P. & Kavoura. A. (2010). Cyberbullying: A review of the literature on
harassment through the internet and other electronic means. Family and
Community Health. (33)2, 82-93.
Korte, C., (1971). Effects of individual responsibility and group communication on help-
giving in an emergency. Human Relations, 24(2), 149-159.
Kowalski, R. M., Limber, S. P., Agastson, P. W. (2012). Cyberbullying bullying in the
digital age (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Kowalski, R. (2007). Teasing and bullying. In B.H. Spitzberg & W.R. Cupach (Eds.),
The dark side of interpersonal communication (2nd Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Latané, B. & Darley, J.M. (1969). Bystander “apathy”. American Scientist, 57(2), 244-
268.
Mason, K. L. (2008). Cyberbullying: A preliminary assessment for school personnel.
Psychology in the Schools, 45(4), 323-348.
Mills, C. B. & Babrow, A. S. (2003). Teasing as a means of social influence. Southern
Communication Journal, 68, 273-286.
Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative
approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Pöyhönen, V., Juvonen, J., Salmivalli, Cllllllk. (2012). Standing up for the victim, siding
with the bully or standing by? Bystander responses in bullying situations. Social
Development, 21(4), 722-741. Doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2012.00662.x
Rubin, R., B., Rubin, A. M., Haridakis, P.M., & Piele, L. J. (2012). Communication
research: Strategies and sources (7th ed.). Boston: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.
Rueger, S. Y. & Jenkins, L. N. (2014). Effects of peer victimization on psychological and
academic adjustment in early adolescence. School Psychology Quarterly. (29)1,
77-88. Doi: 10.1037/spq0000036
"STOMP Out Bullying: The issue of bullying." Nov 2014. Cyberbullying statistics.
Retrieved from STOMP out bullying website:
http://www.stompoutbullying.org/index.php/information-and-resources/about-
bullying-and-cyberbullying/issue-bullying/
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 45
Thornberg, R., (2007). A classmate in distress: schoolchildren as bystanders and their
reasons for how they act. Social Psychology of Education, 10, 5-28.
Thornberg, R., Rosenqvits, R., & Johansson, P. (2012). Older teenagers’ explanations of
bullying. Child Youth Care Forum, 41. 327-342. DOI: 10.1007/s10566-012-9171-
0
Thurlow, C., Lengle, L., Tomic, A. (2004). Computer mediated communication: Social
interaction and the internet. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 46
Appendix A
Research Description and Informed Consent
Hello and thank you for your interest in my survey.
Cyberbullying is a pervasive social media problem, and one that is resulting in
tragic events. Cyberbullying can (and does) have lasting negative impacts on not only
the victims, but the witnesses and even the bully. While much research has been
conducted to explore why cyberbullying occurs and the effects it has on victims, little
attention has been paid to an aspect of cyberbullying that could potentially alter this form
of social bullying.
As a part of my graduate degree program at Gonzaga University in
Communication and Leadership Studies, I am researching how bystanders understand
and interpret their responsibility in cyberbullying encounters. The central focus of this
research is to determine how cyberbullying witnesses determine whether or not they will
intervene in a cyberbullying situation. This study is intended for adult students, aged 18
or older, who have had exposure to cyberbullying episodes.
I would truly appreciate if you could help me by completing the following
questionnaire, which will address standard demographic details as well as your level of
cyberbullying exposure. All information will be kept confidential and participation is
voluntary. You may choose to opt out of the survey at any time. The questionnaire
should take no more than 10 minutes to complete.
If you choose to participate you agree to be contacted via e-mail or phone should
you qualify for the interview stage of this study. If selected to participate in the
interview, please allot 45-60 minutes for a phone conversation or face-to-face interview.
If you are unable to be to participate in the interview via phone or in person, the interview
will be conducted via e-mail.
Thank you in advance for assisting me with my research.
Jodie M. Bowers Jodie M. Bowers
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 47
Appendix B Initial Survey Questionnaire to determine level of Exposure/Experience with Cyberbullying
Research Stage 1
Definition of Cyberbullying to consider when answering the following questions:
“…willful and repeated harm inflicted through the medium of electronic text” Patchin and Hinduja
1. What is your age?
2. What state do you currently claim citizenship?
3. What year of college are you currently completing?
4. As defined above, what would you rate your experience with cyberbullying (e.g.
witnessed, participated in, or was a victim of)?
a. No experience
b. Some experience – 1 or 2 episodes
c. Average experience – 3 or 4 episodes
d. High experience – 5+ episodes
5. What was your role (if any) in the cyberbullying episodes?
a. Victim
b. Bully
c. Bystander
d. Combination of all of the above
e. Other .
6. Please list your e-mail and phone number in which you can be contacted if you
qualify for the interview stage of this research.
e-mail: .
phone: .
Bystanders and Cyberbullying 48
Appendix C
Open-Ended Focus Group Questions – Research Stage 2
1. You indicated in the initial questionnaire you have experienced a(n)
(low/average/high) level of cyberbullying episodes. Can you please explain you
experiences?
2. You indicated in the initial questionnaire that you have experienced cyberbullying
as a witness.
a. Did you intervene?
3. Based on your previous response, I would like to focus on the steps you went
through in determining whether or not you were going to intervene.
a. What social media platform were you using?
b. How did you notice the cyberbullying episode?
c. How did you determine if the encounter was a bullying episode?
d. How did you determine your responsibility to react to the episode?
e. If you decided to intervene, how did you do so?
f. If you decided to remain silent, what was (were) your reason(s)?
4. Thinking back to your formative schooling years, were you provided with any
formal training in how to respond to bullies/cyberbullies if you were the victim?
5. Again, thinking back to your formative schooling years, were you provided with
any formal training in how to respond to bullies/cyberbullies if you were a
witness?